S S Paramasivam1, K Chinna2, A K K Singh3, J Ratnasingam1, L Ibrahim1, L L Lim1, A T B Tan1, S P Chan1, P C Tan4, S Z Omar3, R W Bilous5, S R Vethakkan1. 1. Department of Medicine, University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur. 2. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur. 3. Department of Medicine, Serdang Hospital, Selangor. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur. 5. Newcastle University Malaysia (NUMed), Johor, Malaysia.
Abstract
AIMS: To determine if therapeutic, retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves HbA1c with less hypoglycaemia in women with insulin-treated gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled, open-label trial evaluated 50 women with insulin-treated GDM randomized to eitherretrospective CGM (6-day sensor) at 28, 32 and 36 weeks' gestation (Group 1, CGM, n = 25) or usual antenatal care without CGM (Group 2, control, n = 25). All women performed seven-point capillary blood glucose (CBG) profiles at least 3 days per week and recorded hypoglycaemic events (symptomatic and asymptomatic CBG < 3.5 mmol/l; non-fasting < 4.0 mmol/l). HbA1c was measured at 28, 33 and 37 weeks. In Group 1, both CGM and CBG data were used to manage diabetes, whereas mothers in Group 2 were managed based on CBG data alone. RESULTS:Baseline characteristics (age, pre-pregnancy BMI, HbA1c , total insulin dose) were similar between groups. There was a lower increase in HbA1c from 28 to 37 weeks' gestation in the CGM group [∆HbA1c : CGM + 1 mmol/mol (0.09%), control + 3mmol/mol (0.30%); P = 0.024]. Mean HbA1c remained unchanged throughout the trial in the CGM group, but increased significantly in controls as pregnancy advanced. Mean HbA1c in the CGM group was lower at 37 weeks compared with controls [33 ± 4 mmol/mol (5.2 ± 0.4%) vs. 38 ± 7 mmol/mol (5.6 ± 0.6%), P < 0.006]. Some 92% of the CGM group achieved an HbA1c ≤ 39 mmol/mol (≤ 5.8%) at 37 weeks compared with 68% of the control group (P = 0.012). Neither group experienced severe hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSION:CGM use may be beneficial in insulin-treated GDM because it improves HbA1c compared with usual antenatal care without increasing severe hypoglycaemia. (Clinical Trials Registry No.: NCT02204657).
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To determine if therapeutic, retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves HbA1c with less hypoglycaemia in women with insulin-treated gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled, open-label trial evaluated 50 women with insulin-treated GDM randomized to either retrospective CGM (6-day sensor) at 28, 32 and 36 weeks' gestation (Group 1, CGM, n = 25) or usual antenatal care without CGM (Group 2, control, n = 25). All women performed seven-point capillary blood glucose (CBG) profiles at least 3 days per week and recorded hypoglycaemic events (symptomatic and asymptomatic CBG < 3.5 mmol/l; non-fasting < 4.0 mmol/l). HbA1c was measured at 28, 33 and 37 weeks. In Group 1, both CGM and CBG data were used to manage diabetes, whereas mothers in Group 2 were managed based on CBG data alone. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics (age, pre-pregnancy BMI, HbA1c , total insulin dose) were similar between groups. There was a lower increase in HbA1c from 28 to 37 weeks' gestation in the CGM group [∆HbA1c : CGM + 1 mmol/mol (0.09%), control + 3mmol/mol (0.30%); P = 0.024]. Mean HbA1c remained unchanged throughout the trial in the CGM group, but increased significantly in controls as pregnancy advanced. Mean HbA1c in the CGM group was lower at 37 weeks compared with controls [33 ± 4 mmol/mol (5.2 ± 0.4%) vs. 38 ± 7 mmol/mol (5.6 ± 0.6%), P < 0.006]. Some 92% of the CGM group achieved an HbA1c ≤ 39 mmol/mol (≤ 5.8%) at 37 weeks compared with 68% of the control group (P = 0.012). Neither group experienced severe hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSION:CGM use may be beneficial in insulin-treated GDM because it improves HbA1c compared with usual antenatal care without increasing severe hypoglycaemia. (Clinical Trials Registry No.: NCT02204657).
Authors: Nicole E Marshall; Barbara Abrams; Linda A Barbour; Patrick Catalano; Parul Christian; Jacob E Friedman; William W Hay; Teri L Hernandez; Nancy F Krebs; Emily Oken; Jonathan Q Purnell; James M Roberts; Hora Soltani; Jacqueline Wallace; Kent L Thornburg Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-12-27 Impact factor: 10.693
Authors: Tadej Battelino; Thomas Danne; Richard M Bergenstal; Stephanie A Amiel; Roy Beck; Torben Biester; Emanuele Bosi; Bruce A Buckingham; William T Cefalu; Kelly L Close; Claudio Cobelli; Eyal Dassau; J Hans DeVries; Kim C Donaghue; Klemen Dovc; Francis J Doyle; Satish Garg; George Grunberger; Simon Heller; Lutz Heinemann; Irl B Hirsch; Roman Hovorka; Weiping Jia; Olga Kordonouri; Boris Kovatchev; Aaron Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Brian Levine; Alexander Mayorov; Chantal Mathieu; Helen R Murphy; Revital Nimri; Kirsten Nørgaard; Christopher G Parkin; Eric Renard; David Rodbard; Banshi Saboo; Desmond Schatz; Keaton Stoner; Tatsuiko Urakami; Stuart A Weinzimer; Moshe Phillip Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-06-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Thubasni Kunasegaran; Vinod R M T Balasubramaniam; Valliammai Jayanthi Thirunavuk Arasoo; Uma Devi Palanisamy; Amutha Ramadas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alma J Adler; Todd Ruderman; Francis Valeta; Laura Drown; Celina Trujillo; Gina Ferrari; Amos Msekandiana; Emily Wroe; Chiyembekezo Kachimanga; Gene Bukhman; Paul H Park Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 2.692